[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 52 (Thursday, March 18, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13351-13354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6180]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 211-0126 EC; FRL-6235-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona and 
California State Implementation Plan Revision; Maricopa County, 
Arizona, Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District, San Diego 
County Air Pollution Control District, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 
Pollution Control District, and Ventura County Air Pollution Control 
District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the 
Arizona and California State Implementation Plans (SIP). The revisions 
concern rules from the following districts: Maricopa County, Arizona; 
Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District, California; San Diego 
County Air Pollution Control District, California; San Joaquin Valley 
Unified Air Pollution Control District, California, and Ventura County 
Air Pollution Control District, California. These revisions concern the 
adoption of emergency episode plans within federal guidelines. This 
approval action will incorporate these rules into the Federally 
approved SIP. The intended effect of approving these rules is to 
regulate emergency preparedness in accordance with the requirements of 
the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). Thus, EPA is finalizing the 
approval of these revisions into the Arizona and California SIPs under 
provisions of the CAA regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, SIPs for 
national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards and plan 
requirements for nonattainment areas.

DATES: This rule is effective on May 17, 1999 without further notice, 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by April 19, 1999. If EPA receives 
such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal 
Register informing the public that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments must be submitted to Andrew Steckel at the 
Region IX office listed below. Copies of the rule revision and EPA's 
evaluation report of each rule are available for public inspection at 
EPA's Region 9 office during normal business hours. Copies of the 
submitted rule revisions are also available for inspection at the 
following locations:

Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 ``M'' Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460 California Air Resources Board, Stationary 
Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, 
Sacramento, CA 95812.
Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, Air Quality 
Division, 1001 North Central Avenue, Ste. 201, Phoenix, Arizona 85004-
1942;
Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District, 315 West Pondera 
Street, Lancaster, California, 93534;
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, 9150 Chesapeake Drive, 
San Diego, California 92123-1096;
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1999 
Tuolumne Street, Suite 200, Fresno, California, 93721, and
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 County Square Drive, 
Ventura, California, 93003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office 
(AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, Telephone: (415) 
744-1185.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

    The rules being approved into the Arizona and California SIP 
include: Maricopa County, Arizona, Regulation VI, Rule 600--Emergency 
Episode; Antelope Valley APCD, Rule 701--Air Pollution Emergency 
Contingency Action; San Diego County APCD, Rule 127--Episode Criteria 
Levels, Rule 128--Episode Declaration, and Rule 130--Episode Actions; 
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, Rule 6010--General Statement, Rule 
6020--Applicable Areas, Rule 6030--Episode Criteria Levels, Rule 6040--
Episode Stages, Rule 6050--Division of Responsibility, Rule 6060--
Administration of Emergency Program, Rule 6070--Advisory of High Air 
Pollution Potential, Rule 6080--Declaration of Episode, Rule 6081--
Episode Action--Health Advisory, Rule 6090--Episode Action Stage 1: 
(Health Advisory-Alert), Rule 6100--Episode Action Stage 2: (Warning), 
Rule 6110--Episode Action Stage 3: (Emergency), Rule 6120--Episode 
Termination, Rule 6130--Stationary Source Curtailment Plans and Traffic 
Abatement Plans, Rule 6140--Episode Abatement Plan, and Rule 6150--
Enforcement; and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Rule 
150--General, Rule 151--Episode Criteria, Rule 152--Episode 
Notification Procedures, Rule 153--Health Advisory Episode Actions, 
Rule 154--Stage 1 Episode Actions, Rule 155--Stage 2 Episode Actions, 
Rule 156--Stage 3 Episode Actions, Rule 157--Air Pollution Disaster, 
Rule 158--Source Abatement Plans, and Rule 159--Traffic Abatement 
Procedures.
    These rules were submitted by the Arizona DEP to EPA on January 4, 
1990 and by the California Air Resources Board on March 10, 1998 
(Antelope Valley); January 28, 1992 (San Diego), March 3, 1997 (San 
Joaquin), and January 28, 1992 (Ventura).

II. Background

    The Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 USC s. 7401 et seq.; CAA or the Act) 
required states to develop plans to prevent and

[[Page 13352]]

control air quality from degrading to the level of significant harm. By 
the end of 1971, a regulatory structure was in place that continues to 
this day, see 40 CFR Part 51.150 et seq. (Subpart H) and Appendix L 
(following 40 CFR Part 51.680). Except for changes in the significant 
harm level of criteria pollutants and a few other minor changes, the 
regulatory structure has remained consistent for many years.
    Subpart H requires local agencies to determine if they exceed the 
minimum threshold for criteria pollutants and then to prepare plans to 
avoid significant harm levels of these pollutants. Agencies are 
encouraged to develop a graduated response that depends on the level of 
threat to human health and environmental degradation that the existing 
and projected pollutant levels indicate.

III. EPA Evaluation and Action

    In determining the approvability of an emergency episode rule, EPA 
must evaluate the rule for consistency with the requirements of the CAA 
and EPA regulations, as found in section 110 of the CAA and 40 CFR part 
51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption and Submittal of 
Implementation Plans). The EPA interpretation of these requirements, 
which forms the basis for this action, appears in various EPA policy 
guidance documents, most notably the Guide for Air Pollution Episode 
Avoidance (EPA, 1971) and other derivative publications. In general, 
these guidance documents, as well as other relevant and applicable 
guidance documents, have been set forth to ensure that submitted 
emergency episode rules meet Federal requirements and are fully 
enforceable and strengthen or maintain the SIP.
    Maricopa County, Arizona's earlier emergency episode rule was 
approved into the SIP in 1982. The new rule recasts the information 
about episode level criteria and adds a section on appropriate control 
actions to be undertaken as air quality would deteriorate. The 
administrative requirements section is substantially unchanged.
    The Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District (AVAPCD) has 
adopted an emergency episode regulation intended to comply with 40 CFR 
51.150; this rule will replace South Coast AQMD Rule 701 which has been 
in the Antelope Valley SIP.
    The regulations for APCDs include the following general elements:
    (1) The plan shall identify the appropriate criteria pollutants and 
the levels of those pollutants that would trigger pollution control and 
avoidance activities,
    (2) The plan shall identify a level of significant harm that meets 
or exceeds the federal standards as established at 40 CFR s. 51.51,
    (3) The plan shall identify specific control and avoidance actions 
that the district would take when harmful levels of criteria pollutants 
are reached.
    The Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD), the 
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD), the San 
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD), and 
the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) have adopted 
revisions to their earlier emergency episode plans that have 
incorporated revised federal standards and improved surveillance and 
control activities. A more detailed discussion of emergency episode 
requirements and provisions can be found in the Technical Support 
Document (TSD) for this action, dated November 18, 1998.
    EPA has evaluated the submitted rules and has determined that they 
are consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations and EPA policy. Therefore, 
Maricopa County Rule 600, Antelope Valley APCD Rule 701, San Diego 
County APCD Rules 127, 128, and 130, San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD 
Rules 6010, 6020, 6030, 6040, 6050, 6060, 6070, 6080, 6081, 6090, 6100, 
6110, 6120, 6130, 6140, and 6150, and Ventura County APCD Rules 150, 
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, and 159 are being approved 
under section 110 (k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the requirements of 
section 110 (a)(2)(G) of the Act.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this 
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document 
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should 
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective May 17, 1999 
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by 
April 19, 1999.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule 
will not take effect. All public comments received will then be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The 
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Any 
parties interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this 
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this 
rule will be effective on May 17, 1999 and no further action will be 
taken on the proposed rule.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875

    Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or 
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executiver Order 12875 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected state, local, and tribal governments, the 
nature of their concerns, copies of written communications from the 
governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not 
create a mandate on state, local or tribal governments. The rule does 
not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

    ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks,'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) 
is determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA 
has reason to believe may have a disporportionate effect on children. 
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate 
the environmental health and safety effects of the planned rule on 
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by the Agency.

[[Page 13353]]

    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve 
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health and safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the EPA complies by 
consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the 
preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a 
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, representatives of Indian 
tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the 
development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or 
uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule does not 
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal 
governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 
13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under 
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create 
any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is 
already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not 
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the 
Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such 
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; 
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of 
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves 
pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a 
``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 17, 1999. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulates, Carbon 
monoxide, Volatile organic compounds, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation 
Plan for the States of Arizona and California was approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

    Dated: February 4, 1999.
Laura Yoshii,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart D--Arizona

    2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c) (67) (i) (C) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (67) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) Amended Regulation VI, Rule 600, revised on July 13, 1988.
* * * * * *

Subpart F--California

    3. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs 
(c)(187)(i)(B)(3), (187)(i)(D), (199)(i)(D)(3), (244)(i)(E), and 
(256)(i)(D) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (187) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (3) New rules 150 to 159 amended on September 17, 1991.
* * * * *
    (D) San Diego County Air Pollution Control District.

[[Page 13354]]

    (1) New rules 127, 128, and 130 amended on September 17, 1991.
* * * * *
    (199) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) * * *
    (3) Rules 6010, 6020, 6040, 6050, 6060, 6070, 6080, 6081, 6090, 
6100, 6110, 6120, 6130, 6140, and 6150 were adopted on May 21, 1992; 
amended on December 17, 1992.
* * * * *
    (244) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (E) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 6030 adopted on May 21, 1992; amended on November 13, 
1996.
* * * * *
    (256) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 701 was amended on January 20, 1998.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-6180 Filed 3-17-99; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P